Loading ITAT cases…
97 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in treating student donations as capitation fees without sufficient evidence, as the donations were received significantly after admission and varied in amounts. The Tribunal directed the CIT to grant registration under Section 12AA and remanded the issue of 80G approval for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as there was no proof of notice service for the hearings before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the books of account are not permissible. While the AO can disallow expenses if they are non-genuine and lack proper documentation, disallowing them solely based on cash payments without other specific reasons is arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in treating student donations as capitation fees without sufficient evidence, as the donations were received significantly after admission and varied in amounts. The Tribunal directed the CIT to grant registration under Section 12AA and remanded the issue of 80G approval for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the ERP installation expense, treating it as revenue expenditure as the project was abandoned. It also upheld the deletion of TP adjustment on royalty, excluding R&D cess from the calculation.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses crystallized in the assessment year are deductible. It also found that the purchases were genuine and consumed for production, and that the BIFR scheme recommendations regarding losses and depreciation were binding.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses crystallized in the assessment year are deductible. It also found that the purchases were genuine and consumed for production, and that the BIFR scheme recommendations regarding losses and depreciation were binding.
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is retrospective in operation. Therefore, the benefit of registration under Section 12AA should be extended to the assessment year in question, making the assessee eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The appellate order also failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty was based on the original assessment order, but the CIT(A) had granted relief in the appeal against that order. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to accumulate 15% of its gross receipts as per Section 11(1) of the Act, not 15% of the net receipts. This decision was based on previous rulings of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that a penalty imposed pursuant to a defective show cause notice, which does not specify the charge against the assessee, is not sustainable in law. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The tribunal held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the assessee's inability to represent itself effectively because of the health issues. The case was therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained, a portion of the cash withdrawals from the assessee's bank accounts could be considered available to explain the deposits, after accounting for personal expenses. Therefore, the addition was sustained to a reduced extent.
The Tribunal held that the impugned purchases ought not to be disallowed as bogus in the second round of assessment. The disallowance was deleted based on a previous order that estimated net profit at 8% of total turnover.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular was found to be binding on revenue authorities and applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not discuss all relevant issues on merits as required by law. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found serious discrepancies in the assessee's accounts and the inability to correlate deposits with sales. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides a cash flow statement.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular was found to be binding on revenue authorities and applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal found that no proper notice of hearing was served and that the documentary evidence filed by the assessees was not considered. Therefore, the issue of share application/premium requires fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that no proper notice of hearing was served and that the documentary evidence filed by the assessees was not considered. Therefore, the issue of share application/premium requires fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that indexation benefit is allowable on government securities as they are not bonds or debentures. It also held that brought forward long-term capital loss can be set off against short-term capital gains computed under Section 50. Disallowances under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia) were also deleted based on previous rulings.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order due to a violation of natural justice. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are distinct and not every addition automatically attracts penalty. Citing precedent, it found that the assessee had provided supporting evidence, and the surrender did not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, following its own prior rulings on similar issues for the assessee. The provision for interest was not considered an unascertained liability.
The Tribunal held that for a non-banking finance company whose business includes investing and financing, share application money is part of its business activity. Therefore, interest on borrowed funds used for such applications is deductible.
The CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition as the assessee provided cogent documentary evidence, including audited accounts, proving the investment was made in earlier years and was recorded in the books. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 were defective as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following precedent, the Tribunal cancelled the penalties.
The Tribunal held that the occupation certificate issued by local authorities was only a part occupation certificate, indicating the project was not fully complete. The assessee's method of recognizing income upon project completion, handing over possession, and execution of conveyance was consistently followed and accepted.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with a condition that it would be restored if the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' application is rejected.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that while purchases were unverified, sales were not doubted, implying purchases were necessary. Therefore, a 15% Gross Profit on unverified purchases was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee needed to obtain Form No. 26A and had not yet done so. Considering the COVID-19 situation, the Tribunal granted another opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to accumulate 15% of its gross receipts, not net receipts, following the Supreme Court's decision and its own precedent. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal reduced the addition of Gross Profit to Rs. 2,00,000/- and deleted the addition made on account of LIC payment. The assessee received partial relief.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also allowed the deduction under Section 80-IA, finding the assessee to be a developer, not just a works contractor. The disallowance of PF/ESI contribution and the provision for future losses were also held in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also allowed the deduction under Section 80-IA, finding the assessee to be a developer, not just a works contractor. The disallowance of PF/ESI contribution and the provision for future losses were also held in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also allowed the deduction under Section 80-IA, finding the assessee to be a developer, not just a works contractor. The disallowance of PF/ESI contribution and the provision for future losses were also held in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not confirm if hearing notices were served and lacked detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the ALP adjustments. It found that the CIT(A) rightly considered the linked transactions as a whole and that the TPO erred in treating sales made by associated enterprises directly in India as sales of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on all grounds. It found no infirmity in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A, allowed the Section 80-IA deduction based on previous ITAT rulings, allowed PF/ESI contributions based on the Supreme Court's decision, and allowed the exclusion of Section 14A disallowance for book profit computation based on a Special Bench ruling.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the remittance of funds from Australia and that the payer had recorded the transaction as professional fee and deducted TDS. The mere fact of TDS deduction by the payer was not sufficient to treat the amount as taxable income for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the remittance of funds from Australia and that the payee had recorded it as professional fee and deducted TDS. The Tribunal found no material to support the claim of professional services rendered by the assessee.
The Tribunal has corrected inadvertent typographical errors in its previous order. These corrections pertain to the representation of parties, the case header, and the distribution list of the order.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal served no purpose as the assessee had opted for the dispute resolution scheme. The appeal was treated as withdrawn pending the issuance of the certificate.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on donation and subscription, holding it to be for business purposes based on a High Court ruling. It also deleted the addition of the unsecured loan, finding it pertained to a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and cooperate in the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not consider the relevant factual and legal issues and that the Revenue had not rebutted the assessee's claim of non-service. Therefore, the assessee deserved another opportunity before the CIT(A).